BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and biliary stenting fails in 5-10% patients of malignant biliary obstruction because papilla is inaccessible. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is an accepted alternative. Endosonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been described recently. AIM: To compare success rates and complications of EUS-BD and PTBD internal stenting. METHODS: This retrospective study included failed ERCP in inoperable malignant biliary obstruction due to inaccessible papilla undergoing PTBD or EUS-BD. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography guided/EUS-guided rendezvous procedures were excluded. When PTBD internal stenting failed, external drainage was performed. EUS-BD was performed using either intra- or extrahepatic approach, and stents were placed by transmural (choledocho-duodenostomy or hepatico-gastrostomy) or antegrade approach. Self-expandable metallic stents or plastic stents were placed in both groups. Success of internal stenting and complications were compared using t-test and chi-squared test. RESULTS: Retrospective review of 6 years of records (2005-2011) revealed 50 patients meeting the required criteria. EUS-BD was attempted in 25 and PTBD in 26 patients (one crossover from EUS-BD to PTBD). Internal stenting was technically and clinically successful in 23/25 (92%) EUS-BD vs. 12/26 (46%) PTBD (p < 0.05). External catheter drainage was performed in remaining 14 PTBD patients. Complications occurred in 5/25 (20%) EUS-BD (one major, four minor) and in 12/26 (46%) PTBD (four major, eight minor; p < 0.05). Late stent occlusion occurred in one EUS-BD and three PTBD. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study comparing success and complications of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with inoperable malignant biliary obstruction and inaccessible papilla, EUS-BD was found superior to PTBD for both comparators.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and biliary stenting fails in 5-10% patients of malignant biliary obstruction because papilla is inaccessible. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is an accepted alternative. Endosonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been described recently. AIM: To compare success rates and complications of EUS-BD and PTBD internal stenting. METHODS: This retrospective study included failed ERCP in inoperable malignant biliary obstruction due to inaccessible papilla undergoing PTBD or EUS-BD. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography guided/EUS-guided rendezvous procedures were excluded. When PTBD internal stenting failed, external drainage was performed. EUS-BD was performed using either intra- or extrahepatic approach, and stents were placed by transmural (choledocho-duodenostomy or hepatico-gastrostomy) or antegrade approach. Self-expandable metallic stents or plastic stents were placed in both groups. Success of internal stenting and complications were compared using t-test and chi-squared test. RESULTS: Retrospective review of 6 years of records (2005-2011) revealed 50 patients meeting the required criteria. EUS-BD was attempted in 25 and PTBD in 26 patients (one crossover from EUS-BD to PTBD). Internal stenting was technically and clinically successful in 23/25 (92%) EUS-BD vs. 12/26 (46%) PTBD (p < 0.05). External catheter drainage was performed in remaining 14 PTBD patients. Complications occurred in 5/25 (20%) EUS-BD (one major, four minor) and in 12/26 (46%) PTBD (four major, eight minor; p < 0.05). Late stent occlusion occurred in one EUS-BD and three PTBD. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study comparing success and complications of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with inoperable malignant biliary obstruction and inaccessible papilla, EUS-BD was found superior to PTBD for both comparators.
Authors: P Born; T Rösch; A Triptrap; E Frimberger; H D Allescher; R Ott; N Weigert; R Lorenz; M Classen Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Andreas Püspök; Friedrich Lomoschitz; Clemens Dejaco; Michael Hejna; Thomas Sautner; Alfred Gangl Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Juan J Vila; Manuel Pérez-Miranda; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Monder Abu-Suboh Abadia; Antonio Pérez-Millán; Ferrán González-Huix; Joan Gornals; Julio Iglesias-Garcia; Carlos De la Serna; José R Aparicio; José C Subtil; Alberto Alvarez; Felipe de la Morena; Jesús García-Cano; María A Casi; Angel Lancho; Angel Barturen; Santiago J Rodríguez-Gómez; Alejandro Repiso; Diego Juzgado; Francisco Igea; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien; Juan A González-Martin; José R Armengol-Miró Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Do Hyun Park; Ji Woong Jang; Sang Soo Lee; Dong-Wan Seo; Sung Koo Lee; Myung-Hwan Kim Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: K Yamao; V Bhatia; N Mizuno; A Sawaki; H Ishikawa; M Tajika; N Hoki; Y Shimizu; R Ashida; N Fukami Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Muhammad Ali Khan; Ali Akbar; Todd H Baron; Sobia Khan; Mehmat Kocak; Yaseen Alastal; Tariq Hammad; Wade M Lee; Aijaz Sofi; Everson L A Artifon; Ali Nawras; Mohammad Kashif Ismail Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Reem Z Sharaiha; Nikhil A Kumta; Amit P Desai; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Moamen Gabr; Alex M Sarkisian; Sanjay Salgado; Jennifer Millman; Andrea Benvenuto; Michelle Cohen; Amy Tyberg; Monica Gaidhane; Michel Kahaleh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 4.584